| dc.description.abstract | Universal jurisdiction can be traced back to the works of Grotius, and to the prosecution and punishment of the crime of piracy. However, it is after the Second World War that the concept of universal jurisdiction gained ground through the establishment of the International Military Tribunal and the adoption of new conventions containing explicit or implicit clauses on universal jurisdiction. The Nuremberg and Tokyo military tribunals were created after World War II to try war crimes and other crimes against humanity committed during the war. Universal jurisdiction is a criminal jurisdiction based solely on the nature of the crime, without regard to where the crime was committed, the nationality of the alleged or convicted perpetrator, the nationality of the victim, or any other connection to the state exercising such jurisdiction. It is based on the notion that some crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture are of such exceptional gravity that they affect the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole. Ideally, universal jurisdiction is supposed to be a powerful instrument for the international system by protecting its interests, human rights and fighting against impunity. However, in practice the exercise of universal jurisdiction may violate the principle of sovereignty and sovereign equality and is easily subjected to political abuse including discrimination as manifested in selective prosecution, thus destabilizing international relations. This happens especially when universal jurisdiction is used as a tool for achieving other political ends. States may exercise universal jurisdiction as a means of gaining advantage over states with whom they are in conflict by prosecuting nationals of those opponent states for conduct unrelated to the conflict between the two states. The political nature of universal jurisdiction was manifested when the attempt to exercise universal jurisdiction by Belgium against US generals and politicians was detracted and the universal jurisdiction law was changed in 2003, after being threatened by the US to move NATO Headquarters away from Brussels. The study has analyzed the effects of universal jurisdiction on relations among states using two cases in which senior Rwanda government officials were indicted by a French and a Spanish judge respectively. These two cases were politically motivated and violated the principle of sovereignty and sovereign equality of states. This resulted in the destabilization of international relations between Rwanda and other states such as France, German and United Kingdom. The application of the principle should respect immunities of officials of States and the presence of the suspect should be required to avoid diplomatic tensions between states. Inter-state co-operation remains invaluable to ending impunity and denying safe havens for persons suspected of committing serious international crimes and to maintain good diplomatic relations among states. | |
